The High Court of Kerala finally disposed of Bail Application No. 2434 of 2009 filed under Section 438 CrPC. The court held the application was not a fit case for anticipatory bail due to the serious nature of the sexual offence allegations and dismissed the petition.
Anticipatory bail application dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN
MONDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2009 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1931
Bail Appl..No. 2434 of 2009() -------------------------------------CRIME NO.282/2009 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
ABDUL RAHIMAN USTHAD, PATHARI BHAVAS MANZIL, PUTHANANGADI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.DILIP MOHAN
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:
SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
B.A. No.2434 of 2009
Dated this the 1st day of June, 2009
O R D E R
This is an application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the code of criminal procedure. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.282/2009 of Perinthalmanna Police Station.
under sections 376, 366, 464 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
B.A. No.2434/2009
2
threatened her that the public be made known about the incident
which took place before, by using the nude photographs of the defacto complainant which the accused had taken in his mobile phone. It is stated that the defacto complainant disclosed everything to her husband and as advised by her husband, a complaint was filed. The petitioner would contend that the defacto complainant is his wife, as the petitioner married her on 20/05/2008 at Earvadi. Learned Public Prosecutor would contend that there is no proof to show that the accused had married the defacto complainant as alleged.
The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed.
K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE
scm
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC given the nature of the serious non-bailable offences alleged against him.
Whether the trial court's assessment that the case is not a fit case for anticipatory bail is justified.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
ABDUL RAHIMAN USTHAD
STATE OF KERALA
K.T. SANKARAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
